I don't know, I just know that many phone makers have been doing their damndest to hide the Android branding from their phones, and in China there are makers that are stripping it so much as to have their own app stores. So it stands to reason that there's people out there technically on the Android platform that don't know it.

Is it even 5%? I don't know. I would say that is highly unlikely in the US and EU, but in emerging markets, I think that's entirely possible. I have absolutely no numbers on this, which is why I posed the question. I don't know if it's enough to be an impact, I just know the phone makers themselves are making that effort.

There are a large group of people (I don't know how large, but I know enough personally to imagine it is quite a decent size) who have just upgraded from dumbphones because it was just the next logical thing to do on the upgrade cycle, and they don't have a data plan.

In the US, at least, it's hard to get a smart phone without a data plan of some stripe, even on Paygo. Certainly, I know of no way to get one on a two year contract without it.

I'm not sure how things work in the US, but here in Canada if you are on an existing non-data plan (which everybody who doesn't have a smartphone is on already) you can just buy a low-end Android phone outright and just plug in your SIM card. There's also pay-as-you-go.

These phones are typically Android phones, but they aren't Galaxy S phones. They run 2.2 or something of similar vintage. Some of them have physical keyboards. They're pretty cheaply made, but hey, they're still Android.

But it didn't happen to Google. It happened to Apple, who ditched Google Maps for its own hastily released implementation. And that led to a black eye.

Google hasn't had the same problem with the same effects that Apple has - whether by luck or by skill, it's something Google doesn't have to play damage control on, while Apple does.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of discussion of Apple's skill set, however, which was the discussion that this issue was raised in.

Yes it does.

Apple misrepresented its skillset in this particular instance.

Whether their actual skill is 50 of 100 or 80 of 100 or 95 of 100, Apple played it like it was higher than it actually was. And got bit.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

And here's the perception among most folks:"Apple jumped in the deep end before it was ready."

And neither does this. The implied argument here is basically "It's justifiable to say Apple handled this incompetently because the general public perception is that Apple handled this incompetently". That's not really much of an argument.

They handled it incompetently because they handled it incompetently. This doesn't mean that they handled it worse than anyone has ever handled anything. It doesn't mean that they're fools and the company is going to implode.

It will not punch a hole in the bottom of the ocean and drain out all the water in all the seas.

The CEO himself admitted as much publicly - and is admitting as much to China right now, too, with regards to its repair services there.

Apple isn't bad at services, but they're not as good as they'd hoped to be and they're taking hits because of a series of mishaps in that realm.

I guess, although I don't know what counts as an "activation" (I don't find those numbers that Google puts out very useful anyway-- we have marketshare numbers based on sales, that should be good enough for everyone)

What's interesting is how often these phones (my wife has one) try to "phone home" and then can't connect because there's no data plan, so they complain about not being able to connect, even though you aren't actually doing anything on the phone that would warrant a connection. This only happens when it's away from WiFi, though.

And so have you. It's like we're in the middle of... what's it called....

An argument!!!

Come on, man. What is the point of making this kind of comment? We both know exactly where we are and what we're doing here.

Quote:

You made and/or supported the contention that Apple is bad at cloud services.

I support the contention that Apple has had issues with its cloud services (among other things lately), and that contention is backed up with the words of those who work with these services and people who have been staunch supporters of Apple agreeing with them.

My contention is not that "Apple is bad at cloud services".

Quote:

I have chosen to dispute that contention and I believe I've done so coherently and honestly.

I'd sure hope you're being honest, as I'm doing my best here, too, no matter what your beliefs might tell you or what accusations you levy against me.

Quote:

a) Apple is capable of using its cloud infrastructure to deliver the actual maps to its users. The vast majority of the time it's users have no issue with the data that comes along with those maps. However in some cases the data is wrong and that has nothing to do with cloud infrastructure.

I do not contest the idea that Apple's cloud system works to deliver maps. I agree with that. It's a service that works for most people, I'd say.

However, not sure what makes you think that we think the "cloud infrastructure" is the problem with a service that was released before the data was ready for prime time. The data is part of the problem. The manner in which Apple overestimated its own service's capabilities on a worldwide scale is what was the problem.

I'm sure they'll get it right eventually, but it's a space they've failed to excel in like its competitors have. That's the issue, not the "cloud infrastructure".

Quote:

b) Core Data sync is broken and their is a wide consensus on that issue. However given that Apple has delivered on other sync services offered with iCloud. There is reason to believe that the very idea behind Core Data sync is flawed, if true well it sucks to be Apple. But the failure of Core Data is not the same as a failure of iCloud.

The failure of Core Data isn't the only problems Apple has had with its cloud services, though.

Quote:

Does Apple have a perception problem, no doubt.

It also has technical problems that are tied to the perception problem.

Whether those technical problems are as vast as you pretend I'm arguing they are or as trivial as you are actually arguing is completely beside the point.

Quote:

But I don't believe the contention was about _perception_ but about actual issues with Apple's cloud infrastructure.

Not just the infrastructure but the implementation, the manner in which it has been portrayed by its owner and real-world gaffes the CEO apologized for publicly - and canned a higher-up to pound that nail home.

Quote:

So how about in the future you keep things on the up and up or just don't post here if you don't want people challenging your opinions.

Whether their actual skill is 50 of 100 or 80 of 100 or 95 of 100, Apple played it like it was higher than it actually was. And got bit.

The argument being advanced was "Apple is bad at cloud services". One piece of evidence offered for that was "Apple made this egregious mistake with Apple Maps." But it turns out that Google, a company that nobody would argue is bad at cloud services, has made numerous apparently similar mistakes.

Now the argument seems to be "Apple Maps wasn't as good as Apple lead people to believe it was". That might be valid criticism. But it's not "Apple is bad at cloud services".

Why does iOS generate so much more traffic than Android when Android has a a greater share of the smartphone market? The most obvious answer is that there are quite a few Android phones out there that simply don’t see much use as smartphones.

Oh, you mean like low-end Android phones that people use without data plans?

The manner in which Apple overestimated its own service's capabilities on a worldwide scale is what was the problem.

Well then I don't know why we are having this discussion because as far back as here, I stated very clearly that Apple's problem was based in their hype and their lack of humility and that it was "wholly Apple's fault for not setting expectations accordingly".

FunkTron wrote:

The double standard lives on in the BF.

What double standard. Where have I implied that your opinion regarding this issue is in part or in whole rooted in a dislike of Apple? I don't believe I have, which is why I think the following quote of yours was uncalled for.

How about I believed you were wrong and that my opinion had nothing to do with supporting Apple or that I think Apple needs my support. As it turned out on some things we are not all that far apart, so does that mean that you too are "supporting the big dog in computing"?

Whether their actual skill is 50 of 100 or 80 of 100 or 95 of 100, Apple played it like it was higher than it actually was. And got bit.

The argument being advanced was "Apple is bad at cloud services". One piece of evidence offered for that was "Apple made this egregious mistake with Apple Maps." But it turns out that Google, a company that nobody would argue is bad at cloud services, has made numerous apparently similar mistakes.

Now the argument seems to be "Apple Maps wasn't as good as Apple lead people to believe it was". That might be valid criticism. But it's not "Apple is bad at cloud services".

That started with Megalodon who claimed Apple was "institutionally wired wrong to fix it at an acceptable pace" in this post here.

Also notable is that this is a major, major, major application that is...

Exclusive to Android and will continue to be so long as Apple maintains its current mobile philosophy...

You mean that as a plus?

For Android, its hardware makers and lots of people who are addicted to FaceBook but aren't otherwise very techy?

Absolutely.

The idea of making a themed launcher is promising and different, too, IMO.

Not sure why we haven't seen someone do this yet outside of just standard Android-launcher replacements.

More than anything, though, this is a major win for Android in the exclusivity department (provided it doesn't bomb, of course - but even Gruber thinks it's well done and doesn't have anything bad to say about it really).

For Android, its hardware makers and lots of people who are addicted to FaceBook but aren't otherwise very techy?

Absolutely.

Guess it's a plus for Android in the sense that something is better than nothing. Maybe someone that uses the Facebook system login on iOS will do a run down of the differences, because I have no idea.

FunkTron wrote:

The idea of making a themed launcher is promising and different, too, IMO.

The idea of companies that don't make the hardware getting into the launcher business doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Now hear me out, if it's only Facebook that ships something like this no big deal. However I can easily foresee a future of duelling launcher replacements. They could be come to Android what "Toolbars" was to Windows, it seemed like at one point everyone had one of those and they would install themselves with some piece of software you wanted.

Up till now an Android user that wanted a alternative launcher had to make a point of downloading one. What happens to the usability of Android when users start getting _launchers_ instead of _apps_. How useable will an Android phone be that has a Facebook app/launcher that takes over the phone with one set of UI assumptions and services. What happens to that user when their Twitter app/launcher (assuming they can find it) takes over the phone with another set of UI assumptions and services. Then the same thing happens again when they try to use their Amazon app/launcher, etc, etc.

FunkTron wrote:

Not sure why we haven't seen someone do this yet outside of just standard Android-launcher replacements.

I think the combination of Amazon and Samsung has shown how weak Google's hand is with Android. If this works well for Facebook I can see Amazon re-examining the idea of losing money on hardware.

FunkTron wrote:

More than anything, though, this is a major win for Android in the exclusivity department (provided it doesn't bomb, of course - but even Gruber thinks it's well done and doesn't have anything bad to say about it really).

For Android, its hardware makers and lots of people who are addicted to FaceBook but aren't otherwise very techy?

Absolutely.

Guess it's a plus for Android in the sense that something is better than nothing.

Facebook. The most-used app on all platforms of phone. What was it, 600M active mobile users?

And the only FB-designed, custom experience comes on Android.

I mean, it has yet to play out - and I'm not predicting that it's going to change the world - but that's not just "something is better than nothing."

Quote:

Maybe someone that uses the Facebook system login on iOS will do a run down of the differences, because I have no idea.

This is an Android launcher, so basically a Facebook skin for Android. Doesn't fork it, doesn't break compatibility with Play Store, just makes it a FB-centric setup.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

The idea of making a themed launcher is promising and different, too, IMO.

The idea of companies that don't make the hardware getting into the launcher business doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Now hear me out, if it's only Facebook that ships something like this no big deal. However I can easily foresee a future of duelling launcher replacements. They could be come to Android what "Toolbars" was to Windows, it seemed like at one point everyone had one of those and they would install themselves with some piece of software you wanted.

Launchers are already very popular on the Android side of things. Apex and Nova, for instance, are among top downloads for their free and paid versions. They add a ton of functionality and customizability.

Quote:

Up till now an Android user that wanted a alternative launcher had to make a point of downloading one. What happens to the usability of Android when users start getting _launchers_ instead of _apps_. How useable will an Android phone be that has a Facebook app/launcher that takes over the phone with one set of UI assumptions and services. What happens to that user when their Twitter app/launcher (assuming they can find it) takes over the phone with another set of UI assumptions and services. Then the same thing happens again when they try to use their Amazon app/launcher, etc, etc.

Two things.

1) Launchers don't change how apps work. They are just another app to DL from the Play Store themselves, and FB Home will be, too (for capable/supported phones, of course).

2) Nothing has changed about how you get a launcher, including this one - unless you want to buy the midrange phone that this was built on/for.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Nothing changes except now FB has a launcher that gives your phone a FB-centric UI while keeping everything else you want about Android.

You can even have multiple launchers installed and switch between them at will.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

Not sure why we haven't seen someone do this yet outside of just standard Android-launcher replacements.

I think the combination of Amazon and Samsung has shown how weak Google's hand is with Android. If this works well for Facebook I can see Amazon re-examining the idea of losing money on hardware.

Not sure what you mean here.

FB Home will have its own midrange phone, but it's also downloadable for use on other phones.

More than anything, though, this is a major win for Android in the exclusivity department (provided it doesn't bomb, of course - but even Gruber thinks it's well done and doesn't have anything bad to say about it really).

Why does iOS generate so much more traffic than Android when Android has a a greater share of the smartphone market? The most obvious answer is that there are quite a few Android phones out there that simply don’t see much use as smartphones.

Oh, you mean like low-end Android phones that people use without data plans?

It was all the go for feature phones to prominently display Facebook. The new Facebook 'skin' had to happen now that the last of the old feature phones are being replaced by iterations of Android-handsets if Facebook is to continue to thrive.

It was all the go for feature phones to prominently display Facebook. The new Facebook 'skin' had to happen now that the last of the old feature phones are being replaced by iterations of Android-handsets if Facebook is to continue to thrive.

Facebook. The most-used app on all platforms of phone. What was it, 600M active mobile users?

And the only FB-designed, custom experience comes on Android.

I mean, it has yet to play out - and I'm not predicting that it's going to change the world - but that's not just "something is better than nothing."

As of right now I don't see the big deal. In terms of the utility of the app/launcher not it's quality. I will reevaluate as things go along.

FunkTron wrote:

Quote:

Maybe someone that uses the Facebook system login on iOS will do a run down of the differences, because I have no idea.

This is an Android launcher, so basically a Facebook skin for Android. Doesn't fork it, doesn't break compatibility with Play Store, just makes it a FB-centric setup.

I know it's not a fork, didn't use the word. What I'm saying is that the iOS users that I know that use Facebook post pics, look at pics, and IM. With Facebook login built into iOS it would be nice to see a run down of how this new Facebook launcher makes doing the above better/easier than the set up iOS users have.

FunkTron wrote:

Launchers are already very popular on the Android side of things. Apex and Nova, for instance, are among top downloads for their free and paid versions. They add a ton of functionality and customizability.

I'm well aware of launchers on Android a lot of Android users have argued for how great they are. However up till now they have been a choice and most Android users have chosen not to install one. Will Android users of Facebook have a choice between an app or the launcher. Will it be made explicitly clear to them that a launcher is what they're getting. We are dealing with Facebook here.

FunkTron wrote:

Quote:

Up till now an Android user that wanted a alternative launcher had to make a point of downloading one. What happens to the usability of Android when users start getting _launchers_ instead of _apps_. How useable will an Android phone be that has a Facebook app/launcher that takes over the phone with one set of UI assumptions and services. What happens to that user when their Twitter app/launcher (assuming they can find it) takes over the phone with another set of UI assumptions and services. Then the same thing happens again when they try to use their Amazon app/launcher, etc, etc.

Two things.

1) Launchers don't change how apps work. They are just another app to DL from the Play Store themselves, and FB Home will be, too (for capable/supported phones, of course).

2) Nothing has changed about how you get a launcher, including this one - unless you want to buy the midrange phone that this was built on/for.

1. Exactly. So with this move Facebook maybe setting off an arms race where all the big players want their _apps_ to in fact be _launchers_. What happens to Android usability when a user has a half a dozen apps that has their own take on how the user should interact with the phone.

2. I have been told many times that one of the best things about Android is that if you don't like the way the UI looks/work. There are launchers out their with many difference take on the UI/UX so a user is free to find something they like while iOS users are stuck in a grid of icons.

2a. Facebook from what I can tell as taken to great effect the above capability and has most certainly imposed its own UI/UX on Android. They appear to definitely want the user to interact with the phone through their launcher. What concerns me is what happens when you have every other company changing their app into a launcher and pushing their idea of how to interact with the phone on Android users.

FunkTron wrote:

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Nothing changes except now FB has a launcher that gives your phone a FB-centric UI while keeping everything else you want about Android.

You can even have multiple launchers installed and switch between them at will.

If the FB app becomes the FB launcher and pushes users into a FB-centric UI. Then the Twitter app becomes the Twitter launcher and pushes users into a Twitter-centric UI. Then the Amazon app becomes the Amazon launcher and pushes users into a Amazon-centric UI etc, etc. And because as you point out these things can be switch between at will. Novice android users may find themselves constantly facing different UIs depending on which apps they last launched.

Before today switching apps and switching launchers were two distinct things. In a few years Android users may find themselves in a position where switching apps means switching launchers. This wasn't an issue before because only users that wanted launchers got them. There's no reason to believe that every user that gets the Facebook app in fact wants a Facebook launcher or a Twitter launcher or a Amazon launcher. But given that these companies want users data it's easy to see them not giving users much of a choice.

FunkTron wrote:

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

Not sure why we haven't seen someone do this yet outside of just standard Android-launcher replacements.

I think the combination of Amazon and Samsung has shown how weak Google's hand is with Android. If this works well for Facebook I can see Amazon re-examining the idea of losing money on hardware.

Not sure what you mean here.

FB Home will have its own midrange phone, but it's also downloadable for use on other phones.

What Amazon may think instead is - how smart was it to fork Android?

A) Amazon and Samsung have shown that Google is helpless to stop others from doing what they like with Android.B) If this works well for Facebook I have no doubt that Amazon will retool and put out a launcher. Which lots of people will install, so lots of Android users will have duelling launchers.

It was all the go for feature phones to prominently display Facebook. The new Facebook 'skin' had to happen now that the last of the old feature phones are being replaced by iterations of Android-handsets if Facebook is to continue to thrive.

Hmm, how so?.

Because as the last feature phones turn into Android handsets, it's time to ensure that there's a FB skin for these phones. Yes, FB was slow to react but that's too bad.

On another note, what I like about the FB integration into iOS is that it's unobtrusive. If you want to quickly post, you simply flip quickly the notifications blind. Couldn't be simpler. If you don't want FB on your phone, just disable it. By contrast, the Android integration looks loud.

With chat heads you can keep chatting with friends even when you're using other apps. When friends send you messages, a chat head appears with your friend's face, so you see exactly who you're chatting with. Messages reach you no matter what you're doing - whether you're checking email, browsing the web, or listening to music.

Is that a feature or a threat?

Yoni Heisler wrote:

Facebook wrote:

From the moment you wake up your phone you become immersed in cover feed. Cover feed replaces the lock screen and home screen. It's a window into what's happening with your friends - friends finishing a bike race, your family sharing a meal or an article about your favorite sports team. These are the beautiful, immersive experiences that you get through Home.

You might have missed these updates before, but now they're a central part of the Home experience. Since Home is both your lock screen and home screen, the content comes right to you. You can flip through to see more stories, and double tap to like what you see.

I really fail to see how having Facebook's newsfeed as both the lock screen and home screen appeals to anybody. Forget being a feature, it sounds more like a prison.

Yoni Heisler wrote:

...if a user's news feed is available on both the homescreen and lockscreen, it's effectively available to anyone who picks up their phone.

I just don't get it, I don't see it. But then again I'm not a Facebook user. I think they have started something and I don't doubt they will adapt quickly to the above issues if they are in fact problems.

If Facebook Home sees wide adoption among both users and developers, it will achieve exactly what Adobe strove for: supplanting the OS that came preinstalled on your hardware (unless of course you buy the HTC First) with something entirely different, effectively stealing customers away from Google. That’s incredibly bold, and if they pull it off, wow. I won’t like them any more for it, but I will respect them more.

a) Google forking WebKit, which could put Apple and Google's browsers on different paths.

I don't think there's anything to debate there.

Chrome had at the time of its launch a unique process model, so Google have only used Webkit for parsing and rendering. Now Webkit2 is mirroring some of that work but going about it in a way which conflicts with Google's approach. So reasonably enough Google are forking Webkit. That's exactly what is meant to happen to open source projects when different groups have different aims. Reading about what Google hopes to do with Blink it does make sense, particularly when considering that Google is using a lot of this work as the basis for an OS, not just a browser.

a) Google forking WebKit, which could put Apple and Google's browsers on different paths.

I don't think there's anything to debate there.

Chrome had at the time of its launch a unique process model, so Google have only used Webkit for parsing and rendering. Now Webkit2 is mirroring some of that work but going about it in a way which conflicts with Google's approach. So reasonably enough Google are forking Webkit. That's exactly what is meant to happen to open source projects when different groups have different aims. Reading about what Google hopes to do with Blink it does make sense, particularly when considering that Google is using a lot of this work as the basis for an OS, not just a browser.

The only real surprise is that Chrome still isn't the default Android browser.

Chrome had at the time of its launch a unique process model, so Google have only used Webkit for parsing and rendering. Now Webkit2 is mirroring some of that work but going about it in a way which conflicts with Google's approach. So reasonably enough Google are forking Webkit. That's exactly what is meant to happen to open source projects when different groups have different aims. Reading about what Google hopes to do with Blink it does make sense, particularly when considering that Google is using a lot of this work as the basis for an OS, not just a browser.

I think it's fairly clear that the decision to fork here is political, not technical. We saw a similar dynamic at work with H.264 vs. WebM. Google is happy to release source code (well, for client-side software, anyway), but they want de facto control of the projects they work on — they're not big on multi-party governance.

Google made this decision not in order to be able to reduce the complexity of a codebase, but in order to be able to assert more power over the future direction of the web. Given that Google's interests are in many respects not aligned with those of consumers, this is not necessarily a good thing. Google has waged a very effectively PR campaign which, I suspect, will prevent many people from seeing any danger here. But, well, pretend it's 1997. You're an open source advocate who's enthusiastic about the web and its future as an open platform. You haven't heard of Google yet. I tell you "I'm from the future. In 2013, the word's most popular web browser is developed by an advertising company." Doesn't that have a sort of dystopian feel to it?

Google made this decision not in order to be able to reduce the complexity of a codebase, but in order to be able to assert more power over the future direction of the web.

That's the opposite of what they have said publicly, and I note that not everybody at that link agrees with the "facts".

Besides that just look at the history of Chrome, Chrome OS and what they are proposing for Blink and it's pretty clear that there are technical justifications for doing what they are doing. Now, are there politics as well? Sure, but you don't fork just because Apple can be dicks.

That's the opposite of what they have said publicly, and I note that not everybody at that link agrees with the "facts".

Google is remarkably good at taking self-serving actions while cloaking itself in 'openness'.

ev9_tarantula wrote:

Besides that just look at the history of Chrome, Chrome OS and what they are proposing for Blink and it's pretty clear that there are technical justifications for doing what they are doing. Now, are there politics as well? Sure, but you don't fork just because Apple can be dicks.

It was all the go for feature phones to prominently display Facebook. The new Facebook 'skin' had to happen now that the last of the old feature phones are being replaced by iterations of Android-handsets if Facebook is to continue to thrive.

Hmm, how so?.

Because as the last feature phones turn into Android handsets, it's time to ensure that there's a FB skin for these phones. Yes, FB was slow to react but that's too bad.

You didn't really just cut off all that incredibly relevant FB mobile statistical information and answer this question like it doesn't exist, did you?

Quote:

On another note, what I like about the FB integration into iOS is that it's unobtrusive. If you want to quickly post, you simply flip quickly the notifications blind. Couldn't be simpler. If you don't want FB on your phone, just disable it. By contrast, the Android integration looks loud.

Yes, but they are mainly doing it for technical reasons, as they have outlined, and as is apparent if you read up on what the differences are. Google has one view of how things should be done, Apple has a differing view. The right thing to do is fork, it should be more efficient for all parties than to try and accomodate diverging ideas in a single project.

Webkit itself was a fork of KHTML. Now there's a fork of Webkit. I don't see why it has to have some sort of ulterior motive. Believe or not most decisions made by companies are not political, or driven by ego, or marketing BS. Incredible as it may seem engineers may actually be making the decisions.

Facebook. The most-used app on all platforms of phone. What was it, 600M active mobile users?

And the only FB-designed, custom experience comes on Android.

I mean, it has yet to play out - and I'm not predicting that it's going to change the world - but that's not just "something is better than nothing."

As of right now I don't see the big deal. In terms of the utility of the app/launcher not it's quality. I will reevaluate as things go along.

I can't understand why you don't see the potential here.

600M mobile active users of FaceBook.

Six hundred million.

And now the personal experience for mobile that isn't constrained by being just another app on your phone is available only on Android.

I'm not claiming it's going to take over the world - but I'm baffled by why you don't see why it's a big deal.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

Quote:

Maybe someone that uses the Facebook system login on iOS will do a run down of the differences, because I have no idea.

This is an Android launcher, so basically a Facebook skin for Android. Doesn't fork it, doesn't break compatibility with Play Store, just makes it a FB-centric setup.

I know it's not a fork, didn't use the word. What I'm saying is that the iOS users that I know that use Facebook post pics, look at pics, and IM. With Facebook login built into iOS it would be nice to see a run down of how this new Facebook launcher makes doing the above better/easier than the set up iOS users have.

I'm sure we'll get some comparisons as things go along, but surely you can see just from the stories out there that the FB Home experience cuts out the rest of the phone up front and gives you pure FB all the time, right?

It's not an app you have to launch, and it's front and center.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

Launchers are already very popular on the Android side of things. Apex and Nova, for instance, are among top downloads for their free and paid versions. They add a ton of functionality and customizability.

I'm well aware of launchers on Android a lot of Android users have argued for how great they are. However up till now they have been a choice and most Android users have chosen not to install one. Will Android users of Facebook have a choice between an app or the launcher. Will it be made explicitly clear to them that a launcher is what they're getting. We are dealing with Facebook here.

This is a strange comment.

Every phone has a launcher, they aren't a choice in terms of using one - you must. It's the entry point to the Android experience. Everyone has one installed. And somewhere around 100M have chosen a different one if you go by the conglom of Go Launcher, Nova Launcher, Apex Launcher, ADW Launcher and at least 25 others.

As for FB Home, they make it clear as day that it's not an App and not a new version of Android. The FAQ states pretty clearly that you can disable FB Home and go back to the traditional Android experience as easy as launching the app.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

Quote:

Up till now an Android user that wanted a alternative launcher had to make a point of downloading one. What happens to the usability of Android when users start getting _launchers_ instead of _apps_. How useable will an Android phone be that has a Facebook app/launcher that takes over the phone with one set of UI assumptions and services. What happens to that user when their Twitter app/launcher (assuming they can find it) takes over the phone with another set of UI assumptions and services. Then the same thing happens again when they try to use their Amazon app/launcher, etc, etc.

Two things.

1) Launchers don't change how apps work. They are just another app to DL from the Play Store themselves, and FB Home will be, too (for capable/supported phones, of course).

2) Nothing has changed about how you get a launcher, including this one - unless you want to buy the midrange phone that this was built on/for.

1. Exactly. So with this move Facebook maybe setting off an arms race where all the big players want their _apps_ to in fact be _launchers_. What happens to Android usability when a user has a half a dozen apps that has their own take on how the user should interact with the phone.

I don't see a problem here, can you expand?

Quote:

2. I have been told many times that one of the best things about Android is that if you don't like the way the UI looks/work. There are launchers out their with many difference take on the UI/UX so a user is free to find something they like while iOS users are stuck in a grid of icons.

Yes, all true.

However, even the stock launcher that comes on anyone's Android phone gives you more than a grid if icons if that's what you so choose.

Quote:

2a. Facebook from what I can tell as taken to great effect the above capability and has most certainly imposed its own UI/UX on Android. They appear to definitely want the user to interact with the phone through their launcher. What concerns me is what happens when you have every other company changing their app into a launcher and pushing their idea of how to interact with the phone on Android users.

I don't understand, what's the concern here? Companies that make good experiences should get some traction, those that don't won't.

Quote:

FunkTron wrote:

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Nothing changes except now FB has a launcher that gives your phone a FB-centric UI while keeping everything else you want about Android.

You can even have multiple launchers installed and switch between them at will.

If the FB app becomes the FB launcher and pushes users into a FB-centric UI. Then the Twitter app becomes the Twitter launcher and pushes users into a Twitter-centric UI. Then the Amazon app becomes the Amazon launcher and pushes users into a Amazon-centric UI etc, etc. And because as you point out these things can be switch between at will. Novice android users may find themselves constantly facing different UIs depending on which apps they last launched.

Before today switching apps and switching launchers were two distinct things. In a few years Android users may find themselves in a position where switching apps means switching launchers. This wasn't an issue before because only users that wanted launchers got them. There's no reason to believe that every user that gets the Facebook app in fact wants a Facebook launcher or a Twitter launcher or a Amazon launcher. But given that these companies want users data it's easy to see them not giving users much of a choice.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. The FB Android App, for instance, ain't going anywhere...

There's nothing that should logically lead you to believe that any of these companies are going to stop making the apps and start making launchers only.

Quote:

A) Amazon and Samsung have shown that Google is helpless to stop others from doing what they like with Android.B) If this works well for Facebook I have no doubt that Amazon will retool and put out a launcher. Which lots of people will install, so lots of Android users will have duelling launchers.

A: Which, despite your contradiction opinion on the matter, appears to be A-OK by Google. Google didn't make an open source OS to control every aspect of it, they made it to spread Google far and wide to all corners of every place on earth.B: I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't have to be "dueling" launchers, it can be "complementary" launchers.

Yes, but they are mainly doing it for technical reasons, as they have outlined, and as is apparent if you read up on what the differences are. Google has one view of how things should be done, Apple has a differing view. The right thing to do is fork, it should be more efficient for all parties than to try and accomodate diverging ideas in a single project.

I think you're being a little naive here, taking Google's word as if there's no reason to question it. I suspect in virtually any forking situation one could find some technical issue to cite. Do you really think this can't be political because... what, Google would openly admit if it were? Of course they wouldn't.

ev9_tarantula wrote:

Webkit itself was a fork of KHTML.

And Apple absolutely forked it because they wanted to be running the show. But that didn't really have problematic implications for end users when it was 2003's Apple (with 0% of the browser market and little industry power in general) doing it. It does when it's 2013's Google doing it. This is the world's largest advertising company maneuvering to assert sole effective control over the engine used by the world's most popular web browser.

ev9_tarantula wrote:

Now there's a fork of Webkit. I don't see why it has to have some sort of ulterior motive. Believe or not most decisions made by companies are not political, or driven by ego, or marketing BS. Incredible as it may seem engineers may actually be making the decisions.

Most significant decisions made by companies are made according to calculations of strategic advantage.

It was all the go for feature phones to prominently display Facebook. The new Facebook 'skin' had to happen now that the last of the old feature phones are being replaced by iterations of Android-handsets if Facebook is to continue to thrive.

Hmm, how so?.

Because as the last feature phones turn into Android handsets, it's time to ensure that there's a FB skin for these phones. Yes, FB was slow to react but that's too bad.

You didn't really just cut off all that incredibly relevant FB mobile statistical information and answer this question like it doesn't exist, did you?

I don't know if it's a matter of skill sets so much as it is trying to graft a new capability onto an existing system. I suspect if Core Data had been designed from the start with this kind of distributed architecture in mind, there would be fewer issues.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Both ways sound bad. It's an odd position for you to be in because to argue Apple can't mitigate the problem with interim fixes, you have to assume the thing is so fucked that it can't be fixed with anything remotely similar. That's not really a good defense because it accomplishes the same point by other means.

If the problem can be mitigated it should be, and evidence suggests it can be at least somewhat. If it can't be at all, it should have been pulled and shouldn't be treated as fully supported.

What appears to be happening is a bit of both. The situation could be improved, but Apple has essentially gone away to sulk, while it works on a new version that will be released nearly blind just like the last one. Meanwhile the harm continues to accrue.

A) Amazon and Samsung have shown that Google is helpless to stop others from doing what they like with Android.B) If this works well for Facebook I have no doubt that Amazon will retool and put out a launcher. Which lots of people will install, so lots of Android users will have duelling launchers.

A: Which, despite your contradiction opinion on the matter, appears to be A-OK by Google. Google didn't make an open source OS to control every aspect of it, they made it to spread Google far and wide to all corners of every place on earth.B: I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't have to be "dueling" launchers, it can be "complementary" launchers.

One thing I find striking is that Apple's usual defenders immediately latched on to the loss of control and visions of dueling launchers. But on the Android side we're not terribly worried about Google. If users can have choices they like that's fine. Us > Google. I think a lot of the contention around here comes from the belief that us > Apple as well.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Both ways sound bad. It's an odd position for you to be in because to argue Apple can't mitigate the problem with interim fixes, you have to assume the thing is so fucked that it can't be fixed with anything remotely similar. That's not really a good defense because it accomplishes the same point by other means.

I'm not really trying to mount a general defense of everything Apple has ever done here. I'm making a specific point about how various pieces of evidence that allegedly all point to some specific weakness with cloud services actually point in divergent directions. A mapping data set that's not as strong as a more established competitor's, a social network that nobody found compelling, and a data syncing framework that may suffer from some design issues don't have enough in common to make any point much more specific than "Apple doesn't get everything right every time".

Megalodon wrote:

If the problem can be mitigated it should be, and evidence suggests it can be at least somewhat. If it can't be at all, it should have been pulled and shouldn't be treated as fully supported.

What appears to be happening is a bit of both. The situation could be improved, but Apple has essentially gone away to sulk, while it works on a new version that will be released nearly blind just like the last one. Meanwhile the harm continues to accrue.

There are apps for which Core Data syncing apparently works; I suspect it depends heavily on the complexity of the data model and the usage patterns involved. Core Data and its sync features are client-side APIs, and one expects to see changes to client-side APIs with major OS updates. Apple hasn't "gone away to sulk", they've gone away to work on iOS 7.

Megalodon wrote:

Persistent user data is always critical.

My point, however, is that there's no critical need for developers to adopt Core Data syncing right now.

Megalodon wrote:

One thing I find striking is that Apple's usual defenders immediately latched on to the loss of control and visions of dueling launchers. But on the Android side we're not terribly worried about Google. If users can have choices they like that's fine. Us > Google. I think a lot of the contention around here comes from the belief that us > Apple as well.

I think the question Android fans have to ask themselves is how much Google's competitors can use Android as a tool to undermine Google's strategic interests before Google changes its approach to Android in ways that do, in fact, matter to users.

Chrome had at the time of its launch a unique process model, so Google have only used Webkit for parsing and rendering. Now Webkit2 is mirroring some of that work but going about it in a way which conflicts with Google's approach. So reasonably enough Google are forking Webkit. That's exactly what is meant to happen to open source projects when different groups have different aims. Reading about what Google hopes to do with Blink it does make sense, particularly when considering that Google is using a lot of this work as the basis for an OS, not just a browser.

I think it's fairly clear that the decision to fork here is political, not technical.

How is that political? How is it nothing more than: uh, why would we spend more resources on this to do something you can do yourself?

Justin states this succinctly: "The Chromium code is all in a public repository and was already integrated into WebKit via Chrome's platform layer. Members of the Chrome team were also interested in helping better incorporate Chrome's model into WebKit. So, I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're suggesting that you expected Chrome engineers to simply do all the work."

From Shooti: "A request for clarification on why they refused was posed to a Chrome engineer in todays Blink Q&A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJob8K_OwE#t=13m34s), and according to him the request for integration came shortly after Chrome was released, and the reason for their refusal was the sheer scale/complexity of the task."

Spinning this to be political when it's entirely a technical issue (specifically, the scale of the technological problem) is specious.

A) Amazon and Samsung have shown that Google is helpless to stop others from doing what they like with Android.B) If this works well for Facebook I have no doubt that Amazon will retool and put out a launcher. Which lots of people will install, so lots of Android users will have duelling launchers.

A: Which, despite your contradiction opinion on the matter, appears to be A-OK by Google. Google didn't make an open source OS to control every aspect of it, they made it to spread Google far and wide to all corners of every place on earth.B: I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't have to be "dueling" launchers, it can be "complementary" launchers.

One thing I find striking is that Apple's usual defenders immediately latched on to the loss of control and visions of dueling launchers. But on the Android side we're not terribly worried about Google. If users can have choices they like that's fine.

What I fine striking about the usual Google defenders is the ease they can deny economic reality. They have so bought into Google's PR about being the good "open company" they can't understand that as a public company Google needs to show a return on it's investments. Google is well aware of its obligations which is why there can be mockup of graveyards for dead Google products. So pointing out Google's loss of control of Android has nothing to do with Apple or how many launchers Android users have installed. And everything to do with the fact that the business model that is meant to keep Android afloat is falling apart on Google and at some point they will have to do something about it. I think they will pivot to Chrome and that Chrome will not be as open as Android appears to be. But we'll see.

Facebook at home is a direct threat to Google's real business which is advertising. Contrary to popular belief Google is not in the business of providing people with a free OS, it's a means to an end. Every ad FB serves up to an Android user using FB Home, is one less ad opportunity for Google to collect a dollar, in the case of mobile ads more like 50¢. If FB, Twitter and whoever else that has a ad base business model eats up most of the ad revenue available for Android, Google will walk away. They're not a charity and will not continue building a platform for other companies to make money. Google owned the RSS market with Google reader and walked away from it. Anyone that thinks if FB succeeds wildly with this and the majority of ad revenue on Android starts running through FB, that Google won't walk away is kidding themselves.

Megalodon wrote:

Us > Google. I think a lot of the contention around here comes from the belief that us > Apple as well.

I'm making a specific point about how various pieces of evidence that allegedly all point to some specific weakness with cloud services actually point in divergent directions.

Irrelevant since both agree with me.

ZnU wrote:

Core Data and its sync features are client-side APIs, and one expects to see changes to client-side APIs with major OS updates.

Based on the assumption that it can only be fixed by breaking changes. When I asked you to back that up you provided a link that also said some of it was plain and simple implementation bugs. It's like a battery bug or security bug: expected to be fixed in point releases, and it routinely is.

The claim that there's nothing to be done without breaking changes is not supported and not shared, and even if true doesn't justify Apple's behavior.

ZnU wrote:

Apple hasn't "gone away to sulk", they've gone away to work on iOS 7.

Not seeing the difference. The issue is unacknowledged and unmitigated. Time to stop the bleeding.

ZnU wrote:

My point, however, is that there's no critical need for developers to adopt Core Data syncing right now.

Since user data is critical, they shouldn't. To their credit many developers understand this.